If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.

IE 8 wins the browser security smackdown

IE 8 wins the browser security smackdown

It's bound to make a lot of Microsoft bashers unhappy, but recent testing by an independent security company shows IE8 to be better than Firefox, Safari, Opera or Chrome when it comes to blocking phishing sites. Safari ended up at the bottom of the list. You can read more here: http://www.wxpnews.com/ELDUEN/090818-Browser-Security

Well believe it if you choose to. I do not accept the findings of anyone where, having made their analysis, they then suggest directly or implicitly, which product you should opt for.

I suspect either that they are biased in favour of IE (and it seems obvious they slated what is largely considered to be M$ biggest threat - chrome) or they may have been commissioned to do this survey by M$.

I bet they didn't test FF with noscript enabled because it isn't really part of the basic browser.

bazz

"The day you stop learning is the day you become obsolete"! - my late Dad.

Google Chrome is nowhere near IE's biggest threat. Though I and my love adore the browser, its marketshare is still relatively small. Firefox is and has been for a while the thorn in MS's side.

I didn't pick up any hint by NSS that IE was the browser to go for (though correct me if I haven't been reading that closely.) By that logic, you can't trust any browser survey, because every one of them implicitly implies a better browser.

If they had tested Firefox with noscript enabled, they would have had to disable JS in the other browsers. There would be no point. The results are more applicable to the real world this way, anyway, because the majority of people, especially those susceptible to phising attacks, probably would have JS enabled.

I do feel questionable of the results, but you can't dismiss them as downright false just because they showed a winner you don't like.

MS's SmartScreen technology is updated regularly, isn't it? Wouldn't this give them an edge over the competition?

If they had tested Firefox with noscript enabled, they would have had to disable JS in the other browsers. There would be no point. The results are more applicable to the real world this way, anyway, because the majority of people, especially those susceptible to phising attacks, probably would have JS enabled.

fair point, I think.

I do feel questionable of the results, but you can't dismiss them as downright false just because they showed a winner you don't like.

ouch!! dat hurt.

anyhoo, I don't dislike IE. I would see it more constructive if it outlined the choices the naive consumer could make which don't necessarily mean picking the more secure browser, especially if plug-ins like noscript would let them secure a browser they were already familiar with. I admit though; I have become so accustomed to noscript keeping me safe I almost feel naked in IE without it.

bazz

"The day you stop learning is the day you become obsolete"! - my late Dad.

anyhoo, I don't dislike IE. I would see it more constructive if it outlined the choices the naive consumer could make which don't necessarily mean picking the more secure browser, especially if plug-ins like noscript would let them secure a browser they were already familiar with. I admit though; I have become so accustomed to noscript keeping me safe I almost feel naked in IE without it.

bazz

I agree with giving users a choice but I think most users will pick IE only because its what they've been using. As to the noscript add on. I love it except it can get you into trouble on some websites that need javascript to work properly and you forget to allow the site. Recently I purchased a plane ticket back home but after buying the nonrefundable ticket I noticed it was only one way. I had to purchase another ticket back home. It wouldn't be a big deal if the flight was the cheapest I found but it wasn't.

As to the noscript add on. I love it except it can get you into trouble on some websites that need javascript to work properly and you forget to allow the site. Recently I purchased a plane ticket back home but after buying the nonrefundable ticket I noticed it was only one way. I had to purchase another ticket back home. It wouldn't be a big deal if the flight was the cheapest I found but it wasn't.

Does the plane ticket frustration have anything to do with the noscript add-on? If so then itís their fault for having a bad implementation that requires JS in order to be able to purchase a ticket online. This isnít acceptable and you should ask for a refund in my opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't really consider blocking phishing sites to be a huge security thing. It's more like preventing the user from doing something stupid (like believing a phishing scam). I would think a browser to be secure if it blocks things you have no control over, such a blocking viruses, worms, and people getting unauthorized access to your computer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't really consider blocking phishing sites to be a huge security thing. It's more like preventing the user from doing something stupid (like believing a phishing scam). I would think a browser to be secure if it blocks things you have no control over, such a blocking viruses, worms, and people getting unauthorized access to your computer.

Thats exactly what I thought when I read this article.
Did M$ actually fix the real security problems in their browser?

PHP Code:

header('HTTP/1.1 420 Enhance Your Calm');

Been gone for a few months, and haven't programmed in that long of a time. Meh, I'll wing it ;)

Does the plane ticket frustration have anything to do with the noscript add-on? If so then itís their fault for having a bad implementation that requires JS in order to be able to purchase a ticket online. This isnít acceptable and you should ask for a refund in my opinion.

Yeah it was because of noscript. Allowing the site, it tells you that you need to purchase returning flight. The terms of the ticket I purchased clearly states its nonrefundable so there wouldn't be anything I could do.

Slightly off the main topic but that just 'gets my goat'. (annoys me).

In that instance I wouldn't think you are seeking a refund so much as seeking compensation for the additional cost that was placed on you, because their site did not tell you all their terms of their product/booking?

On that basis ~ here in the UK ~ you could seek a payment from them but I know you aren't from the UK so it may be different where you are.

bazz

"The day you stop learning is the day you become obsolete"! - my late Dad.

Exactly that’s what I meant. You’re not asking for a refund because you changed your mind but because their website wasn’t working properly. So clearly it’s their fault and not yours, and you should have the right to ask for compensation.

Agree with the other commenters. Success at blocking phishing sites is NOT the same as protection from virus/trojans and other vulnerabilities. IE, as everyone knows, is a sieve when it comes to those areas and continues its legacy as the worst browser on the planet by 11 years.